The Referendum on the King act

[Colonel Mximo Carbonèl]

The Referendum on the King act

Whereas that the king refuses to respect the decision of the Court of Justice.
Whereas that the task of king requires a great respect of the rules.
Whereas that the people of Talossa have already suffered from the tyranny of an ancient monarch.

Therefore, be it resolved that the Secretary of State conduct a referendum in the next general election. That the referendum will be conducted under the same rules as the referendums to amend the Organic Law. That the referendum be effective as soon as the certified results are announced. That the question of the referendum be as follows:
We Talossa's people demand that JOHN I abdicate his duties as King of Talossa and of all his Realms and Regions, King of Cézembre, Sovereign Lord and Protector of Pengöpäts and the New Falklands, Defender of the Faith, Leader of the Armed Forces , Viceroy of Hoxha and Vicar of Ataturk.

Mximo Carbonèl

[King John]

S:reu Carbonel, it's not a question (as I see it) of "respecting" a decision of the Cort; it's a question of whether the Cort actually has the power to overturn the plain meaning of the OrgLaw by "interpreting" it to mean almost the opposite of what it says. The Crown has vast respect for the rules, and among those rules are limitations not only on what the Crown can do, but also on what the Cort can do.

And an "ancient monarch"? That's cold.

— John R

[Miestrâ Schivâ, UrN]

Dec 5, 2016 15:34:59 GMT -6 King John said:

S:reu Carbonel, it's not a question (as I see it) of "respecting" a decision of the Cort; it's a question of whether the Cort actually has the power to overturn the plain meaning of the OrgLaw by "interpreting" it to mean almost the opposite of what it says. The Crown has vast respect for the rules, and among those rules are limitations not only on what the Crown can do, but also on what the Cort can do.

And an "ancient monarch"? That's cold.

— John R

There was another King of Talossa who lost a case in the UC, and then declared that it didn't matter, he was right and the UC was wrong. In fact, he went as far as to say that the UC had destroyed Talossan law altogether and "no nation can exist without law". Do you remember what happened to him?

You rule by the consent of the people, not by the will of Allà. Talossa is not your property.

[Owen Edwards]

Your Majesty,

There's a peculiar irony to you arguing for an originalist interpretation when the basis of the dissenting opinion (mine) in the first case and the majority opinion in the second case was precisely on intentionality, context, and meaning. If we are to have a written constitution, I am firmly for a small-c conservative interpretation of it.

As it is, the King's opinion on the matter is not of relevance to whether or not certain Amendments go into law - the Cort Case determined that they do. Of course, the King is entitled to his own judgement and to the propagation of that opinion.

As to the above intended act/amendment: no, thanks, Mximo. Even if the King were a rotter (and he's far from it), I would be quite happy with my constitutional monarchism.

[Gödafrïeu Válcadác’h]

Max, refers, John, to Mad King Ben. You, sir, are nowhere near as 'ancient' as Ben was - lol. :-)

The question in my mind is still the fact the monarch (John or anyone else) may (or may not) have the power to unilaterally stall constitutional reform at any time. This is a dangerous state of affairs, and I will do my part to see this changed.

[Owen Edwards]

Does the King have that unconditional power?

[Dr. Txec dal Nordselvă]

Dec 10, 2016 13:08:19 GMT -6 Owen Edwards said:

Does the King have that unconditional power?

It is beginning to look like the king believes he can override the Cort. I don't remember seeing that in the OrgLaw.

[Owen Edwards]

It is entirely his right to hold that opinion, of course! Thankfully opinion is not legally enforceable.